I guess that the point, isn’t it? Why should they give a damn about what you like? How much consideration does the average hawkish voter (which seems to be an increasingly large population) give to what other countries what the US ought to do? The ‘go-it-alone’ and ‘we-do-as-we-please’ attitude is admirable when the US government preaches it, and it’s repugnant when others say it. That seems hypocritical to me.
Iran had a dictator brought back in a US-backed coup. It had biological weapons used against it. Just like some Republicans who will ignore any treaty in the name of national security, Iran’s mullahs probably see acquiring nuclear weapons as an urgent matter of national security.
The idea that we’d like to keep them militarily weak so we can force our foriegn policy on them jut doesn’t seem all that convincing from their side of the table.
And for those who are essentially saying ‘might is right’ or 'the guy with gold makes the rules; then all Iran is trying to do is the ‘right thing!’
Yes it is hypocritical, wrong etc. The US is the only superpower, and doesn’t want little theocratic states with the bomb. I see no wrong in this, its only doing what powers have done through the ages, thwart any other which tries to show any challenge.
I have no problem either with the US not wanting Iran to have nukes. The US president should re-affirm the previous commitment that their nukes will never be used on a non-nuclear power, set in motion a new consensus between current nuclear powers to include a ‘no first use’ commitment and should start to take urgent steps to abolishing their own nuclear weapons in line with their obligations under previous treaties. Then we may begin to see some progress.
In 1953, the U.S. Government told the people of Iran what kind of government they should have by first overthrowing their president (Mohammed Mossadegh) and then imposing the hated Shah of Iran on them. (It was a time where the U.S. Government saw a communist behind every tree, and then acted on their paranoia.)
Now they’re telling Iran what they can have for their own national defence. While I don’t approve of THAT action, it is an entirely different thing when they’re talking about nuclear weapons. However, even the issue of Iran having nuclear weapons should be a matter for diplomatic negotiations and NOT imposition of policy from outside powers.
I’m pretty sure that if the Shah was still in power, the U.S. would be more than happy to supply Iran with the nuclear weapons it desired.
Gah. When did debate over international relations become the schoolyard writ large? “It’s not FAIR. Johnny has a BB gun, I should be allowed to have one, too!”
Cronos1, you are wrong in both your facts and your premises. The fundamental premise here is that nuclear weapons are dangerous, fer chrissakes. The more nuclear weapons there are, the more danger, for the entire world. Regardless of whether or not the US should or should not have nukes, the world becomes a less safe place if Iran has nukes, if N. Korea has nukes, or if Brazil has nukes. The entire world, including the US, working through the IAEA, has a vested interest in stopping the world from becoming less safe. Period.
Little Nemo, your premise appears to be that the US’s finding in 1991 equating all WoMD caused several nations to start nuclear weapons programs. First, could you provide a cite for the existence of the “finding”? A Google search didn’t turn up anything on point. Second, could you provide a cite for your premise?
Iraq, for instance, had a nuclear weapons program at least as of 1981.
IIRC, the IAEA has uncovered Iranian violations of the NPT dating back to 1986.
Brazil actually renounced its nuclear weapons ambitions in 1990, having worked towards a nuclear bomb for decades before then.
South Africa had nukes as early as 1974, before voluntarily disarming by 1993.
India declared in 1966 that it could build a bomb w/in 18 months, then set off a 15-kiloton “peaceful nuclear explosion” in 1974.
Pakistan started its nuclear program in 1972, and as early as 1979 the US was imposing sanctions on the country for its nuclear weapons program. (Cite for both India and Pakistan)
As for North Korea, while the country is so secretive it is hard to know much of anything, the CIA was expressing concern about a possible nuclear weapons program there by the mid 1980s
Libya declared its intention to obtain nuclear weapons in the 1970s, and started work back then.
Indeed, Little Nemo, I can’t find a single state on this comprehensive list that embarked on its nuclear weapons program after 1991.
That’s all good and dandy, but considering the US is actively working on making mini-nukes for use in those hard-to-reach places, I think any suggestions of abandoning nuclear weapons completely is misguided.
My question is how far is the US willing to go to stop Iran from aqcuiring the bomb. Iran already has all the equipment, scientists, and uranium they need. I don’t think sanctions will stop them. So, will this situation come to war?
How convenient. The US and others couldn’t give a toss about world safety unless it challeneges their dominance. Perhaps it makes some sense to be concerned with world safety as it pertains to nuclear weapons, but to have any credibility while making such an assertion, the nations who currently have (and have used such weapons in the past) need to set the example.
You can’t expect other nations to drop trou “cuz I sez so.” Those same nations have an extensive history of covertly and overtly attacking Iran. Anything Iran does to protect its safety is not only meritted, it’s fully justified.
Do you think that South Africa’s or Brazil’s nuclear weapons programs constituted a threat to US and other’s dominance? No, but both programs were opposed by the Powers That Be.
Unfortunately, I think when the problem of nuclear weapons is confronted, the “fair play” ethos may have to take a back seat to hard-nosed realism. It’s not exactly a wonderful thing that some countries already have nuclear weapons. It’s far from a desireable thing when nations who actively sponsor terrorism, like Iran, or are run by crackpot gamesmen, like N. Korea, decide they want to join the nuclear club. It’s bad enough as it is that Russia’s military infrastructure is in shambles and weapons could be stolen; do we now also want nuclear powers that are entirely likely to have elements within them fully capable of transferring nuclear weapons to extremists as a gift? Is this the price of fair play? Self defense is an understandable concern of any nation, but when that nation is under the influence of extremist fanatics or unbalanced despots, one might reasonably ask, why should such a nation be allowed to have weapons that can kill millions of people in one fell blow?
Absolutely. Just because the governments were not hostile towards each other doesn’t mean “the powers that be” would want any other nations to have the most destructive weapon. Any nation that has such weapons means they are much closer to being on an equal playing field in a military conflict.
The genie was out of the bottle when the first nuclear explosion took place in New Mexico in 1945. After that, it was always in the US’ interest to prevent anyone else from getting the bomb. Unfortunately, it was not in its power.
A fair question with the simplest of answers. The US is the US, interested in its own security and dominance, both of which are threatened, at least potentially, by every other nation who has nuclear capability. You don’t say where you hail from, Cronos1, but I’m guessing it isn’t the US. Otherwise you would know more or less instinctively that self preservation is paramount to us. We don’t give a tinker’s dam about the “right” to have nukes as long as we remain the dominant (and safe) power. Obviously, it’s not working out very well.
We still have an uneasy detente with Russia, an assumed friendship with the UK, France and Israel, and a perhaps unjustified feeling that we can at least hold nations like Pakistan and even China at bay. North Korea is a real source of anxiety. But (let’s admit it) Muslim nations, some of whose leaders past and present have said we should be destroyed, give us a real reason to fear their possession of nuclear weapons. Right has nothing to do with it. As long as we have the power, you can be sure we will exercise it. We will never predicate that on a “by your leave” from the UN or anybody else. Nor should we. If you find us arrogant, just reverse the position and tell me how you would feel if a large bloc of hostile nations called your country (whatever it is) the “Great Satan” and vowed to destroy all its people.
If it turns out you are an American, I’d say this particular “Devil’s advocacy” is a bit much.
What I find somewhat exasperating about this debate is what appears to be the postion, held by some, that since we’ve (speaking as an American) reneged on treaties and otherwise behaved badly, everybody else should be given their own opportunity to make the same mistakes. Maybe for some issues that’s a reasonable course to follow, but in this case we’re talking about nuclear weapons, for crying out loud. Doesn’t the problem of nuclear proliferation warrant a special set of rules? What’s the rationale for being “fair” when what’s at stake is the possibility that such destructive weapons could wind up in the hands of extremists?
Wouldn’t a more prudent approach be to agree that we probably shouldn’t have them, but some nations absolutely mustn’t have them? So, following this line of thinking, we do what we can to disarm ourselves and the other nuclear powers through diplomacy, use diplomacy whenever possible to prevent proliferation, and force when necessary?
I would agree with any and all that George W. Bush is about the worst person imaginable to responsibly hold up our end of the deal, but I hardly see the reason to further conclude that since we’ve got a fuckup in power presently, all the other fuckups (among them some veritable sociopaths) must be given access to the club out of a sense of justice. That’s suicidal, if you ask me. There are ways to deal with folks like G.W. Bush, namely voting him out of office. How ought nations deal with a bomb-wielding Kim Jong Il?
I find your post most bewildering! Lets start with the last sentence in your post:
“If it turns out you are an American, I’d say this particular “Devil’s advocacy” is a bit much.”
Logic, reason and fairness isn’t dependent upon one’s origin. You either have an logical argument or you don’t. I realize that these days there’s a right-winged sanctioned view of the world, and to speak contrary to that is "un-American. " So, sorry to disappoint you, but I am an American.
And this statement:
“Otherwise you would know more or less instinctively that self preservation is paramount to us.”
You don’t think self preservation is paramount to the rest of the world? You think others would just be OK with getting wipped off the face of the earth?
And this is where you and I actually agree:
“If you find us arrogant, just reverse the position and tell me how you would feel if a large bloc of hostile nations called your country (whatever it is) the “Great Satan” and vowed to destroy all its people.”
So speaking of rerversing positions, how would you feel if you lived in Iran? Remember, Iran here had its democratic leader thrown out by a US coup. And in its place US brought back a dictator who ruthlessly suppressed any opposition. And during the war with Iraq, US gave a lot of “aid and comfort” to Saddam; who by the way was gassing Iranian soldiers. So, again, how would you feel if you were them? Never mind, I know exactly how you’d feel: nuke 'em bastards.
But the stunning arrogance of this one:
“As long as we have the power, you can be sure we will exercise it.” Which basically say we will bully anyone we damn please for as long as we can. Is it any surprise when others try to get the same power?
I realize we feel pretty good when we can force our will upon others. But, I am not sure how much the rest of the world enjoys the dog-inferior position. And this power projected as you’ve described here only serves to strengthen their resolve to strike back.
And Iran is interested in Iran’s security and dominance, and the US has fucked Iran over in the past and is quite capable of doing so again. For what it’s worth, the US just preemptively invaded Iran’s neighbour with the flimsiest excuse. Clearly, Iran is defenseless if the US decides that it should be the the next on the list. And the US has taken an aggressive stance against Iran - Axis of Evil and all that rot.
Obviously, Iran can’t be blind to the fact that if they have the Bomb, they might get negotiations and deal-making, like North Korea. I for one would much prefer that Iran did not have the bomb, but I sure as hell don’t blame them for trying to get their hands on one. We’ve provided them with great motivation for doing so.
You misunderstood me, which is my fault. I wasn’t clear enough. I am a liberal Democrat for the most part. I just think that America has the right to do whatever it must to protect itself. Your OP began by saying “But what I really want to know who the hell is the US to tell Iran they can’t have nukes?” That sounded to me like an outsider looking in. Sorry if I misread you. Then you said " Can other countries decide what US can have or not have in its arsenal?" to which I say, not unless they are more powerful than we are.
Of course it is. But we are not threatening to nuke them. They are threatening to nuke us, or give nukes to groups who will. I’m only saying that if we can keep them from getting nuclear arsenals we should.
Probably just as they do.
You are wrong there. You don’t know exactly how I would feel if you think I’d advocate nuking anyone. I agree with you that American foreign policy has been a horror from the point of view not only of our enemies but quite a few of the friends we still have. If we had left Iran to the Ayatollahs in the first place we might have been able eventually to “win their hearts and minds.” That doesn’t appear to be possible now, so we have to insist that they remain toothless, at least as far as we are concerned. Would you have us just turn over our nuclear technology and then pray that they don’t use it against us?
It’s no surprise, and I’d feel the same way if I were living in any of those countries. But nobody in my government asked for my advice about US policy since the 60’s (probably earlier). That is how it is, and I’m not inclined to take a shiv in the back for the bad decisions of former days.
You are right again (about their resolve to strike back), and that is exactly why we have to limit access to nuclear weapons as long as we are still able to. I don’t disagree with you philosophically, but as a practical matter, we have to protect ourselves. That’s why I said that we don’t need the right if we have the power. I stand by what I said.
The OP asks “what right does the US have in trying to intervene” if Iran wants to have the nukes? Here is the answer:
As a superpower, the US simply can and will intervene whenever and wherever she feels it is in her “national interest” or in line with its “foreign policy” to do so. On the other hand, a 3rd world country like Iran not only cannot do that, she will simply not be allowed to do anything that could possibly be against the interest of the more powerful nations. The question of “having the right” is mute – as the recent US invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly indicates.
As an undisputed superpower, the US has the right to do whatever she wants on this planet including:
Refusal to ratify the Rome Statute constituting the International Criminal Court, while at the same time pressuring everybody to sign bilateral treaties favoring U.S personnel
The US right to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons - which, along with the total unwillingness to subscribe to any kind of ultimate elimination objective, has made the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty more fragile than it has ever been
Unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty
Diluting almost to the point of meaninglessness the UN plan for dealing with illegal trafficking in small arms
Spending over $450 billion per year on defense, higher than the combined total of all countries in the world, including the five ‘rogue states’ identified by the Pentagon as its most likely adversaries (Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and Cuba), plus China, plus Russia - and plus its eighteen NATO allies as well!
Given the above, do you still want to know “who the hell is the US to tell Iran they can’t have nukes?”
That wouldn’t have happened if the person actually elected by the people had gone to the White House instead of the one installed by a coterie of Republican judges.
That’s not likely if Kerry wins the election; very likely if Bush does. But whoever is president, it will be in the US’ interest to keep the nuclear club as small as possible.
Good point. But I’d just as soon the US negotiated from strength, not fear.